scholarly journals Imperial Tobacco and Trial Lawyers: An Unstable and Unsuccessful Retreat

2019 ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
(Alyn) James Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prince Edward Island ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Architectural Model ◽  
Textual Approach ◽  
Organizing Principles

The Supreme Court of Canada established an architectural model of the Constitution through the Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island and the Reference re Secession of Quebec. This model has an informing core of “organizing principles” engaging both written and unwritten rules. These two decisions and earlier landmark rulings have used unwritten principles to reach dramatic conclusions. Yet, the Supreme Court departs from this line of authority in Imperial Tobacco in which a strong textual approach is taken. The author argues this decision led to instability in constitutional doctrine that was further complicated in Trial Lawyers. This article explores the strengths of the Judges Reference and the Secession Reference and the need to uphold the use of unwritten constitutional principles while calling for the Imperial Tobacco case to be set aside.

scholarly journals The Judges Reference and the Secession Reference at Twenty: Reassessing the Supreme Court of Canada's Unfinished Unwritten Constitutional Principles Project

2019 ◽  
pp. 1077
Author(s):  
(Alyn) James Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prince Edward Island ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Self Reflection ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Unwritten Rule ◽  
Interpretive Framework

Upon the 20-year anniversary of the Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island and the Reference re Secession of Quebec, the author reflects on the methodology utilized by the Supreme Court of Canada to reach dramatic conclusions on the basis of unwritten constitutional principles in these cases. An analysis of several decisions leading up to the Judges Reference and the Secession Reference establish a pattern of reasoning from the abstract to the concrete, from unwritten principle to unwritten rule. However, these decisions lack in methodological self-reflection as they utilize unwritten principles to reach particular outcomes without situating the analysis in a larger interpretive framework. The author seeks to clarify this uncertainty by suggesting a methodological framework entitled “reasoning from constitutional essentials.” This methodology can assist in understanding the analytical framework used by courts to identify and reach conclusions on the basis of unwritten constitutional principles.

scholarly journals The Eve Decision — A Common Law Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 657-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward W. Keyserlingk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prince Edward Island ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Medical Procedures ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Mentally Disabled ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Parens Patriae ◽  
The Law ◽  
Do So

By its decision in the Eve case, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified and settled the law in at least two important respects. From now on, provincial statutes can only be used to authorize guardians to permit involuntary contraceptive sterilizations if their wording clearly and explicitly so provides. The Prince Edward Island statute in question did not do so. Secondly, though the Court's parens patriae jurisdiction is of unlimited scope and does extend to cases involving medical procedures, it cannot serve as the basis for authorizing non-therapeutic sterilizations. By ruling out the applicability of parens patriae, and by insisting that judges are not able to deal adequately with such cases, the Supreme Court may have strengthened the case for new legislation in this area. The writer argues that such legislation should provide for access to contraceptive sterilization for the mentally disabled, and the needed safeguards to protect those unable to consent or refuse from the imposition of sterilization in the interests of parties other than themselves.

The concept of human dignity in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Canada on Charter Equality Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 118-137
Author(s):  
Tatiana Vasilieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Equality Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Additional Burden ◽  
The Impact

This article explores the evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to the application of the concept of human dignity in constitutional equality cases. Traditionally, in human rights cases, this concept serves only to strengthen the argument, to show that the violation affects the person’s intrinsic worth. It is only in Canada and in South Africa that there is experience in applying the concept as a criterion for identifying discrimination. In 1999, in Law v. Canada, the Supreme Court recognized the purpose of Article 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 to be the protection of human dignity and stated that discrimination must be established based on assessment of the impact of a program or law on human dignity. However, in 2008, in R. v. Kapp, the Court noted that the application of the concept of human dignity creates difficulties and places an additional burden of prove on the plaintiff. It is no coincidence that victims of discrimination have preferred to seek protection before human rights tribunals and commissions, where the dignity-based test is not used. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of the concept of human dignity as a criterion for identifying discrimination. The unsuccessful experience of applying the concept of human dignity as legal test has demonstrated that not every theoretically correct legal construction is effective in adjudication.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of February 28, 2020, on Nevsun v. Araya: a “quiet revolution” in the assessment of the status of corporations under public international law?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Vera Rusinova ◽  
Olga Ganina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Human

The article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Nevsun v. Araya case, which deals with the severe violations of human rights, including slavery and forced labor with respect of the workers of Eritrean mines owned by a Canadian company “Nevsun”. By a 5 to 4 majority, the court concluded that litigants can seek compensation for the violations of international customs committed by a company. This decision is underpinned by the tenets that international customs form a part of Canadian common law, companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law, and under ubi jus ibi remedium principle plaintiffs have a right to receive compensation under national law. Being a commentary to this judgment the article focuses its analysis on an issue that is of a key character for Public International Law, namely on the tenet that international customs impose obligations to respect human rights on companies and they can be called for responsibility for these violations. This conclusion is revolutionary in the part in which it shifts the perception of the companies’ legal status under International Law. The court’s approach is critically assessed against its well-groundness and correspondence to the current stage of International law. In particular, the authors discuss, whether the legal stance on the Supreme Court of Canada, under which companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law is a justified necessity or a head start.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document